Readings:
Nm 6:22-27
Ps 67:2-3, 5, 6, 8
Gal 4:4-7
Lk 2:16-21
“If anyone believes that holy Mary is not the mother of God (Theotokos), he has no share in the divine inheritance”, wrote the great fourth-century Archbishop and Doctor of the Church, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, “If anyone says that Christ passed through the virgin as through a tube but was not formed in her in both a divine and human manner, divine without the assistance of man, human in accordance with the law of pregnancies, he likewise is ungodly.”
Those are strong words, and if I had heard them while still a Fundamentalist Protestant, I would have been scandalized. A close relative, also a Fundamentalist, once referred to Mary as a “biological vessel” used by God, and at one time I would have agreed. But now I joyfully confess the truth that Mary is indeed the Mother of God.
What changed my mind? Many things, including the study of Church history and the development of theology and doctrine, but mostly a deeper and better understanding of Scripture.
The readings on this marvelous Solemnity are not, of course, presented as a defense of the Theotokos (literally, “God-bearer” or “Mother of God”). Rather, within the liturgical celebration, they are divine brushstrokes that together create and write an icon of the Blessed Mother.
One of those brushstrokes is the word “bless”. It’s worth noting that the first reading heard on the first day of the civil calendar is about God’s blessing: “The Lord bless you and keep you!” God desires to bless us during our time upon earth; he wishes to shine his face upon us, which means he extends an offer of intimate and holy communion.
And how, in the fullness of time—as the Apostle Paul wrote to the Galatians—did that blessing come about? Through another brushstroke, that of “birth”. God sent his Son, Paul explained, “born of a woman, born under the Law…” God blessed man by becoming man, and the blessing of the Incarnation was through the power of the Holy Spirit and the faith of Mary.
The birth of the Son of God, Paul declared, had a most incredible goal: “so that we might receive adoption as sons.” The only Son of God by nature became man so men can become sons of God by another brushstroke, that of grace, which is God’s own divine life. This profound truth is condensed by Paul into a phrase that captures, in a most fundamental form, the saving work of the Trinity: “God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying out, ‘Abba, Father!’”
The Catechism expressed this Trinitarian work and Mary’s perfect cooperation with grace in this beautiful way: “Mary, the all-holy ever-virgin Mother of God, is the masterwork of the mission of the Son and the Spirit in the fullness of time. For the first time in the plan of salvation and because his Spirit had prepared her, the Father found the dwelling place where his Son and his Spirit could dwell among men” (par 721).
This dwelling place among men has a particular abode, another brushstroke: “heart”. Mary, in pondering the birth of her Son, “kept all these things, reflecting on them in her heart” (Lk 2:19, 51). The heart, in Scripture, is not merely a place of emotions or feelings, but is the deepest, most intimate part of one’s being. Mary’s physical role has eternal meaning and value because of her faith, flowing from a heart completely given to God. “Even her maternal relationship would have done Mary no good”, wrote St. Augustine, “unless she had borne Christ more happily in her heart than in her flesh.”
Mary, then, is not a tube or a biological vessel, but the Holy Mother of God. She is also the Mother of all believers and the Mother of the Church (cf, Catechism, 963, 975). Our response should be that of the shepherds, glorifying and praising God, for he has blessed us with grace, peace, and salvation.
(Note: This “Opening the Word” column was originally published in Our Sunday Visitor newspaper on January 1, 2012.)
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Mary is a mystery of the divinity, not simply God’s chosen “dwelling place”. She was prefigured from all eternity as Mother of God and of Christ’s Mystical Body. In a mysterious, meaning unfathomable way she required prefiguration as the one unique creature united by design not by substance to the Trinity.
Mary’s Annunciation assent, tantamount to the reparation of Eve’s assent to Lucifer is the hallmark. The initiation of Man’s participation in the divinity through Christ her Son. Athanasius of Alexandria taught Christ was born from her, not that the divinity entered her womb. Enabling us to say Christ was conceived in her, born from her. Her flesh and blood becoming his as the conveyance of the real presence of the Divine Person Jesus in the Holy Eucharist [confirmed Ephesus].
So what must the Church hold in respect to a trend at deification, and the title Co-Redemptrix? To which Pope Francis has legitimate concern. Clarification is exigent. From Leo XIII adding the title Co-Redemptrix, to the clarification by Pius X. That what Christ obtains for the Church as unique Redeemer De Condigno, she the new Eve does in a manner De Congruo. Christ by right, Mary by the grace of Christ.
If I may add to Carl Olson’s entirely orthodox essay, it is sovereign to the great love the Divine Majesty, Christ has for his mother that she is so highly exalted.
Thank you, Carl, for this excellent article. It seems that some Protestants moved away from the original views of Luther and Calvin, who both acknowledged Mary as the Mother of God (though Calvin thought it best not to speak of her with this title). I am also grateful to Fr. Morello for his comments and his citation of St. Pius X on Mary’s merit de congruo. On the papal use of the title, Co-redemptrix, there seems to be some misinformation. This article by Inés San Martin claims that the Marian title, Co-redemptrix, is absent from papal teaching except in Leo XIII’s 1894 encyclical, “Iucunda Semper”. https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2021/03/once-again-pope-francis-says-mary-is-not-the-co-redemptrix
I should mention that the title appears in the English translation of the “Iucunda Semper” posted on the Vatican website, but it’s not there in the Latin. Leo XIII however, on July 18, 1885, did approve some laudes to Jesus and Mary with an indulgence of 100 days granted by the Congregation for Indulgences and Sacred Relics. In the Italian version of the praises to Mary, she is referred to as “coredemptrix of the world” (corredentrice del mondo). In the Latin version, she is referred to as the “mundo redimendo coadiutrix). Leo XIII approved both the Italian and Latin versions of the prayer (Acta Sanctae Sedis [ASS] 18 [1885] p. 93). There are, though, other papal approvals or uses of the title. During the pontificate of Pius X, the Holy See three times gave approval to prayers invoking Mary as co-redemptrix (cf. Acta Sanctae Sedis [ASS] 41 [1908], p. 409); Acta Apostolicae Sedis [AAS] 5 [1913], p. 364; AAS 6 [1914], pp. 108–109).
Pius XI was the first pope to publicly use the title: once on November 30, 1933 (Discorsi di Pio XI, 2, p. 1013); again on March 23, 1934 (L’Osservatore Romano [OR] 25 March 1934, p. 1); and once again on April 28, 1935 (OR 29–30 April 1935 p. 1).
John Paul II publicly used the title, Co-redemptrix, at least six times: General Audience, 10 December 1980 (Insegnamenti di Giovanni Paolo [Inseg] II, III/2 [1980], p. 1646); General Audience 8 September 1982 (Inseg V/3 [1982], p. 404); Angelus Address 4 November, 1984 (Inseg VII/2 [1984], p. 1151); Discourse at World Youth Day 31 March 1985 (Inseg VIII/1 [1985], p. 889–890); Address to the Sick 24 March, 1990 (Inseg XIII/1 [1990], p. 743); Discourse of 6 October, 1991 (Inseg XIV/2 [1991], p. 756). Moreover, in a homily in Guayaquil, Ecuador on January 31, 1985, John Paul II spoke of the “co-redemptive role of Mary —el papel corredentor de María (Inseg VIII [1985], p. 319).which was translated as “Mary’s role as co-redemptrix” in the English edition of L’Osservatore Romano March 11, 1985, p. 7. The Italian translation, though, is closer to the Spanish, viz., il ruolo corredentore di Maria.
The title “Co-redemptrix” was not used in Vatican II because it was thought that it would be understood with difficulty by the separated brethren (e.g. the Protestants). The title, when properly understood, does not take anything away from Christ who is one divine-human Redeemer of the human race. The great Mariologist, Gabriele Roschini (1900-1977) understood the title Co-redemptrix this way: “The title Co-redemptrix of the human race means that the most holy Virgin cooperated with Christ in our reparation as Eve cooperated with Adam in our ruin” (Gabriele Maria Roschini, Who is Mary? A Marian Catechism, qu. 83). In the Italian original it reads: “Il titolo Corredentrice del genere umano significa che la Virgine SS. ha cooperato con Cristo alla nostra riparazione, come Eva aveva cooperato con Adamo alla nostra rovina.” Padre Gabriele Maria Roschini, Chi è Maria? Catechismo Mariano a cura di Carlo DiPietro (Pignola: Sursum Corda, 2017) domanda 83, p. 47).
Fr. Ludwig Ott, in The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (London: Baronius Press, 2018) pages 229–230, offers this comment on the Marian title, Coredemptrix:
“The title Coredemptrix = Coredemptress, which has been current since the fifteenth century, and which also appears in some official Church documents under Pius X (cf. AAS 6 [1914] 108), must not be conceived in the sense of an equation of the efficacy of Mary with the redemptive activity of Christ, the sole Redeemer of humanity (1 Tim. 2, 5).”
Pope Francis, like Benedict XVI, believes it’s better to avoid the term. He did, though, state that “there is no salvation without the woman” (non c’è salvezza senza la donna) in his Jan. 1, 2020 homily for the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God.
Now that we know in 749 words how many times the term “co-redemptrix” has been used, might we also hear that its meaning is “cooperation” rather than, as some denounce, “co-equal.”
And, after only one year, we now might consider the word “blessed,” as in “the Lord bless you and keep you” (above). Especially now that we have both a definition and a heavily conditioned re-definition, further (con)fused as “bless” now is in referring to an irregular “couple.” And, at the same time with the word “you,” still understood in the “backwardist” singular. Mary uniquely blessed, not the same as for Mary and Joseph, nor for another Joseph coupled with another Joseph or whatever.
And then, what about this word “irregular”? Possibly as in another kind of gas: “regular,” “extra” and “supreme” at the pump? That’s it, irregular as a blend, or maybe as a synodal “synthesis” of fornication, homosexuality, co-habitation, and serial bigamy? Some irregular stuff can be blended to a single word unhinged from the original meanings, but this alchemy then requires 5,000 words of explanation as in Fiducia supplicans. Gold becomes lead, wine becomes water, and truth becomes inadmissible.
But, speaking theologically—what the hell! It’s all just a matter of semantics, antics, and mental gymnastics.
749! I verified the count; the number is true but of course has nothing to do with Mary as cum (with) from which ‘co’ is derivative. The number is true but not equal to the number of nuts wanting blessing multiplied by the number of fruits wanting blessing,* all the while subtracting good fruit. Seven hundred forty-nine.
*With thanks to Karl Rahner, Germany, and VCII. Blessed be Ecumenism, for and innumerable distinctions)! Blessed be Protestantism (for multiple versions of Mary’s fertility, and the diversity of her fruits and nuts)!
The Immaculate Conception predestined this little Jewish maiden to conceive by the Holy Spirit and become the mother of the Incarnate God. Mary full of grace and her divine Son did not sin but shared a life of holy purity, poverty, sacrifice and prayer. How much she must have loved her divine Son and beloved God, all in one. But “the debt that He pays is the debt of the human race but He only pays it because He substitutes Himself, out of love, for all of us.” Blessed Catherine Emmerich writes:
“I saw Him taking leave of His mother. I saw Mary’s grief. I saw Him upon the Mount of Olives and He said to me: ‘Dost thou wish to be treated better than Mary, the most pure, the most beloved of all creatures? What are thy sufferings compared to hers?” When the sword had pierced her soul of pure love; still, I think the Blessed Virgin loves the second person of the Blessed Trinity, and her Son, so deeply she would not want Him to share his title: Redeemer, Savior of the world. They say the martyrs approach the throne of Christ and place their crowns at His feet because He suffered more physically and innermost pain and torment than all of them together.
Many years ago, while I was involved in my parish’s RCIA program, one of the catechumens asked me a simple question:
“Why do we need Mary?”
I gave him some answer, one probably intended to showcase my own highly scintillating brilliance rather than the simple truth.
Anyway, I thought about the question afterwards and realized that I should have said:
“Good question, Dave. So tell me, why did you need your mother?”
It’s not complicated.
It’s not complicated…it’s foolishness.
Dear Carl:
Happy New Year and God’s richest benedictions as you delve into the mysteries of the Lord to enlighten the CWR flock. Though we may tend to differ on some small points, you get the job done! The “Readings” you provide are a !blessing.
Gal 4:4-7 4 But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship.[a] 6 Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba,[b] Father.” 7 So you are no longer a slave, but God’s child; and since you are his child, God has made you also an heir.
Luke 2:19 But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart.
In Galatians 4, it simply says born of a women. Where do we find the “immaculate Conception” in Holy scripture, we don’t. Where do we find Anne mentioned in the Bible? For such important considerations that are to accepted, it stands to reason that scripture would address matters. To presuppose a motif doesn’t necessarily make it so.
In Luke 2 it says Mary pondered these matters. You and I ponder matters too, we are not perfect and scripture strongly suggests that Mary was not perfect either. God is perfect and the Virgin Birth of Jesus and His sinless perfection comes from the Holy Spirt, not from anything Mary did or was.
Perhaps we should touch on the “Queen of Heaven” appellation!
Jeremiah 7:18 The children gather wood, the fathers kindle fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven. And they pour out drink offerings to other gods, to provoke me to anger.
Jeremiah 44:25 Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: You and your wives have declared with your mouths, and have fulfilled it with your hands, saying, ‘We will surely perform our vows that we have made, to make offerings to the queen of heaven and to pour out drink offerings to her.’ Then confirm your vows and perform your vows!
These two passages are a cautionary note from the Lord. Some will argue that Mary herself would not be comfortable with such a title. Let us hold Mary in high honour for her name will always be blessed. Let us be content to know that we are not privy to the mysteries of God. Let nothing be established before its appointed time.
In the peace and majesty that is jesus Christ,
Brian
What evidence do you offer for your claim: “scripture strongly suggests that Mary was not perfect.”?
And your quote from Jeremiah about other gods? Whom are the other gods you believe Jeremiah is talking about? Why would any Israelites offer sacrifice to someone they could not possibly have known? Since the time of Jeremiah is around 600 BC, their power of prophecy and anachronism surely would have put Jeremiah’s to shame!
I have long wondered about the Protestant need to treat Mary as a creature of no consequence. She bore him in her body and gave birth. After being lost and then found at the Temple, Jesus was”subject” to her and Joseph. He did his first miracle at her request.And she was among the few who did not flee as he was crucified, and watched him take his last breath, a nightmare for any mother, no matter how holy. And, at whatever point St. Joseph died, she then became his sole human parent, which was surely of significance to Jesus. She was much more than simply a random womb to be discarded after Jesus was born. The idea of treating all of this as no consequence makes me gasp at their need to diminish her.Sadly it would seem they do not know what they are missing. Bravo to those Protestants who at some point see the light on this issue.
Yes to your, “I have long wondered about the Protestant need to treat Mary as a creature of no consequence.”
Perhaps the explanation is the weak human predisposition to figure that things past pretty much had to work out in the way that they have. After all, we’re riding THE trajectory or arc of history. We can even periodize history leading up to the present and “modern” era, what C.S. Lewis called “chronological snobbery.”
But what if key PIVOT points within “history” had been other than what they are? What if Muhammad had accepted the Triune One rather than perceiving the Christian Trinity as just another pagan triad? AND, what if, instead of saying “fiat” to ABSOLUTE and yet self-disclosing MYSTERY, Mary had said “not today”? Only in Mary did it become possible (“nothing is impossible for God”) for God to fully enter into the human condition. Not as a mere idea, but as a concrete and yet transcendent FACT.
If nothing else, Mary faces each of us with the magnitude and, yes, the mystery of OUR OWN “free will” (as made “in the image and likeness of God”!), and with the mysterious and eternal (!) consequences (!) of our own decisions or indecisions, wisdom or stupidity, and willful (willful!) ignorance, or not, of the terrible and yet gratuitously graced (both) stage of personal history where each of us finds himself.
Mary, the pivot point for the INCARNATION as the center of all human history, OR not. Thanks be to Mary, the “co-redemptrix”—not in the sense of “co-equal,” but in the sense of “cooperating,” rather than not.
Brother Brian would not have a single line of New Testament Scripture to quote, nor could he appeal to the “peace and majesty that is Jesus Christ,” were it not for Mary who said “yes” RATHER THAN “no.” And who, in silent humility, “pondered these things in her heart.” Mary, honored as the Mother of Christ (Theotokos), and of the pondering Church itself which sacramentally is the Mystical Body of Christ.
“A biological vessel, used by God, or the Mother of God, chosen by God”?
Both
Mary gave Christ His human nature. I think it was Anselm who said that what was not assumed could not be saved. God in Christ assumed His human nature from Mary. Without this human nature, man could not have been saved. Call her by any title that fits God’s plan in time.
It seems that it was St. Gregory of Nanzianzus who proposed the formula that what has not been assumed cannot be saved.
Carl, your article is timely.. The great doctor of the church may have used the word pregnancy about Mary. However, today with biology, along with the truths of our faith we need to develop a word from the moment of the “fiat” to our Lord leaving the Blessed tabernacle of Mary and placed in a manager… The Church has no word, pregnancy reduces our Lady to a level that is below her Blessedness..
We cannot use the same word pregnant, for our Lord’s incarnation, and Saint Elizabeth’s pregnancy with John.. No other woman carried God in her womb.. Please let’s petition the Holy see about this.
The other titles, mediatrix and co- redemmptrix can be used, but we don’t need to define them, as Catholics we should know our faith.
God Bless
Nice…..2nd day in of the new year and already drawing attention away from the Savior’s birth to one of His many creatures. Oh Lord….please circumcise their hearts of stone and if it’s your will, let them see the errors of their ways, otherwise it’s going to be another loooong year of continued apostasy.
And here is Brian after reading the first two chapters of the Gospel of Luke: “Nice…take two whole chapters to deflect from Jesus and to go and on about Mary being ‘full of grace’. She’s just one of many creatures, a nobody. But I am Brian! I know the Bible! And I know better than Luke and, probably, even God!”
By the way, Brian: since you despise the Catholic Church so much, please stop referring to a (the!) Catholic book, the Bible, in your silly attacks.
Carl, I don’t know this Brian, is he real or AI, anyway we shouldn’t give him any extra time.. What I am concerned about and maybe through this article is: we need a word to define our lady’s divine maternity. The word pregnant only lowers her dignity and gives” confused individuals as Brian to question the Mother of God.. Maybe father Peter Stravinsky can write something on this. She is not a vessel.
Your prayer for the Lord to circumcise Catholic hearts shows that you disregard the warning of Jesus to those like you in his parable of the publican and the pharisee. The pharisee prays that God see the deficiency of the publican’s prayer and person. Your prayer is no different. Good luck with getting God to bless that type of apostatic sin. Sheesh. One would have thought that a protestant and his bible could have gone further than that.
If Carl continues to allow the likes of you loose here, at a minimum you really should learn how to spell and to reason beyond the second grade.
Sad! Fundamentalist Brian starting the new year off with the same old bigotry. I guess you can’t teach a Fundamentalist dog new tricks, like how to be a decent human being. A sad but helpful cautionary tale.